COMBINED Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines-1

Bail and Bond
Policy Guidelines
March 2015
National Council on the Administration of Justice
Table of Contents
Definitions.....................................................................................3
1. Introduction ..........................................................................4
2. Objectives of the Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines ......7
3. General Principles....................................................................8
4. Bail and Bond Decision-Making.........................................11
Bail and Bond in the Police Station
11
Situational Analysis
11
Policy Directions
13
Bail and Bond in the Courts
15
15
Policy Directions
24
5. Supervision of Bail and Bond Terms and

Conditions..............................................................................30
Policy Directions
30

31
6. Inter-Agency Coordination, Oversight of Places of

Detention, and Public Awareness.....................................31
Policy Directions
Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines
31
34
Definitions
Bail An agreement between an accused person or his/her sureties and the court that
the accused person will attend court when required, and that should the accused
person abscond, in addition to the court issuing warrants of arrest, a sum of money
or property directed by the court to be deposited, will be forfeited to the court.
Bail hearing a proceeding in which the court determines whether an accused
person should be released or held in custody pending trial.
Bail Report - A social inquiry report based on information generated about the
background and community ties of an accused person, and its purposes are to verify
information provided to the court by the accused person, to assess the likelihood that
the accused person will appear for trial, and enable the court to impose reasonable
bail terms and conditions.
Bond An undertaking, with or without sureties or security, entered into by an
accused person in custody under which he or she binds him or herself to comply
with the conditions of the undertaking and if in default of such compliance to pay
the amount of bail or other sum fixed in the bond.
Personal Recognizance The release of an arrested or accused person on the
undertaking of such a person that he or she will appear in court as and when required.
Pretrial Detention The confinement of arrested and accused persons in custody
pending the investigation, hearing and determination of their cases.
Pretrial Detainees Accused persons who have been formally charged and are
awaiting the commencement of their trials; accused persons whose trials have
begun but have yet to come to a conclusion; persons who have been convicted by
a court of first instance but who have appealed against their sentences or are within
the statutory limits of doing so.
Remandee An accused person detained in a prison pending the determination of
his or her case.
Security A sum of money pledged in exchange for the release of an arrested or
accused person as a guarantee of that persons appearance for trial.
Surety A person who undertakes to ensure that an accused person will appear in
court and abide by bail conditions. The surety puts up security, such as money or
title to a property, which can be forfeited to the court if the accused person fails to
appear in court.
Introduction
1.
Introduction
1.1
Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution of Kenya gives an arrested person the

right to be released on bond or bail, on reasonable conditions, pending
a charge or trial, unless there are compelling reasons not to be released.
Further, Article 49(2) of the Constitution provides that A person shall not be
remanded in custody for an offence if the offence is punishable by a fine only
or by imprisonment for not more than six months.
1.2
At the same time, the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) empowers an officer in
charge of a police station or a court to admit a person accused of an offence
other than murder, treason, robbery with violence, attempted robbery with
violence and any related offence to bail or release on executing a bond
with sureties for his or her appearance.1 Alternatively, such a police officer
or court may, instead of taking bail from the accused person, release him or
her upon executing a bond without sureties.2 Further, the CPC provides that
The amount of bail shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of
the case, and shall not be excessive.3 It also gives the High Court the power
to direct that an accused person be admitted to bail or that bail required
by a subordinate court or police officer be reduced.4 Finally, it provides that
Before a person is released on bail or on his own recognizance, a bond for
such sum as the court or police officer thinks sufficient shall be executed by
that person, and by one or more sufficient sureties.5
1.3
A number of other laws also contain provisions that deal with bail. These
laws are the Children Act, the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the National
Police Service Act. The Children Act empowers courts to grant bail to child
offenders pending their appearance before a Childrens court.6 The Prevention
of Terrorism Act 2012 provides that the rights of an arrested person specified
under Article 49(1)(f) of the Constitution may be limited in order to ensure
the protection of the suspect or any witness, to ensure that suspect avails
himself for examination or trial or does not interfere with the investigations,
to prevent the commission of an offence under this Act, or to ensure the
preservation of national security.7
1.4
The National Police Service Act gives a police officer investigating an alleged
1 Criminal Procedure Code, Chapter 75, Laws of Kenya, section 123(1).

2
Ibid.
3
Ibid, section 123(2).
4
5
Ibid, section 124.
6
Children Act, section 185(4).
7
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2012, section 35.
Introduction
offence, save for an offence against discipline, broad discretionary power to
require any person to execute a bond in such sum and in such form as may
be required, on condition that the person shall duly attend court if and
when required to do so.8 However, this power is to be exercised in strict
accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.9 A person who refuses or
fails to comply with the bond requirements commits an offence.10
1.5
These foregoing provisions of the Constitution and statutory laws seek to

regulate administration of the right to bail and pretrial detention, that is the
confinement of accused persons in facilities such as police cells or prisons,
pending the investigation, hearing, determination or appeal of their cases.
Administering these laws entails balancing the rights of suspects and accused
persons to liberty and to be presumed innocent with the public interest.
1.6
Attaining this much-needed balance has proved elusive for much of Kenyas
history, and complaints abound concerning disparities in the administration
of bail and bond. For example, research shows that there has been little
consistency and standards in the application of bail by concerned agencies.11
As a result, there is great public concern that bail (sic) granted across the
country lack clear criteria, are exorbitant, unjustifiable and unaffordable by
the majority of accused persons who are vulnerable and poor.12
1.7
Conversely, in the face of increasing and deadly terror attacks and new
crimes such as drug trafficking and piracy, the Government and the public
have expressed concern that persons accused of committing such serious
crimes are absconding after being granted bail, thereby undermining the
administration of criminal justice.
1.8
Additionally, for the first time in Kenyas history, the Constitution now
recognizes and seeks to protect the rights of victims of crime. Article 50(9)
requires Parliament to enact legislation providing for the protection,
rights and welfare of victims of offences. Parliament has now enacted this
legislation, in the form of the Victim Protection Act 2014. This Act seeks to
recognize and give effect to the rights of victims of crime.13 Second, this Act
seeks to protect the dignity of victims of crime through, among other things,
8
National Police Service Act, section 51(3).
9
10
11
Republic of Kenya, Office of the Vice President and Ministry of Home Affairs, Draft National Bail Information and Supervision Policy, Task Force Drafting the Victims of Offences Bill and
the Bail Information and Supervision Bill 2011 at 19.
12
Ibid.
13 Victim Protection Act 2014, section 3(a).
Introduction
the provision of better information.14 Third, it seeks to promote cooperation
among government departments, organizations and agencies involved in
working with victims of crime.15 In particular, this Act implicates bail decisionmaking in two significant respects:
(a) It imposes a duty on the courts to ensure that every victim is, as
far as possible, given an opportunity to be heard and to respond
before any decision affecting him or her is taken16: and
(b) It gives victims of crime the right to have their safety and that of
their family considered in determining the conditions of bail and
release of the offender.17
1.9
For the foregoing reasons, there is a need to establish policy principles that
will guide the police and judicial officers as they exercise their powers to
grant or deny bond and bail, so that they can ensure that the rights of suspects
and accused persons to liberty and to be presumed innocent are balanced
with the public interest, including protecting the rights of victims of crime.
1.10 Equally, it is important to appreciate that the exercise of the powers of the
police and judicial officers to grant or deny bail and bond impacts on other
criminal justice institutions, particularly the prisons. In this respect, it should
be noted that pretrial detainees make up almost half of the prison population.
A need therefore arises for effective cooperation and coordination among the
criminal justice institutions if the problem of overcrowding in prisons is to be
resolved.
1.11 It is in this context that the Chief Justice appointed the Task Force on Bail
and Bond to formulate these Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines. The Taskforce,
under the direct supervision of the Deputy Chief Justice, was placed under the
umbrella of the National Council on the Administration of Justice (NCAJ).18
The Judicial Service Act establishes the NCAJ, and gives it the primary
function of Ensur[ing] a coordinated, efficient, effective and consultative
approach in the administration of justice and reform of the justice system.19
In particular, this law requires the NCAJ to formulate policies relating to the
14
15
16
17
18
19
Ibid, section 3(b).

Ibid, section 3(c).
Ibid, section 4.
Ibid, section 10(1)(b).
Judicial Service Act, No. 1 of 2011, section 34.
Objectives
administration of justice.
2.
Objectives of the Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines
2.1
These Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines are to guide police and judicial officers
in the application of laws that provide for bail and bond. Accordingly, these
Policy Guidelines are not intended to fetter the discretion of police officers
and judicial officers in bail and bond decision-making.
2.2
In particular, these Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines seek to:
(a) Ensure that bail and bond decision-making process complies with the
requirements of the Constitution.
(b) Guide bail and bond decision-making by police and judicial officers.
(c) Balance the rights of the suspects and accused persons with the public
interest, including the rights of victims.
(d) Streamline and address disparities in bail and bond decision-making, with a
view to enabling fair administration of bail and bond measures.
(e) Facilitate effective inter-agency cooperation and coordination in bail and
bond administration.
(f) Enhance conformity with the internationally agreed minimum standards for
arrested persons and persons held in detention.
(g) Address the over-use of pre-trial detention.
(h) Safeguard the interests of victims of crimes in bail decision-making.
(i) Facilitate the effective supervision of accused persons granted bail.
General Principles
3.
General Principles
3.1
Bail and bond decision-making shall be guided by the following principles,

which are derived from international best practices:20
(a) The right of accused person to be presumed innocent. Every accused
person shall be presumed innocent (Article 50(2) of the Constitution).
This is the primary rationale for the requirement of the Constitution
that an arrested person has the right to be released on bail or bond.
The presumption of innocence dictates that accused persons should be
released on bail or bond whenever possible.
The presumption of innocence also means that pretrial detention should
not constitute punishment, and the fact that accused persons are not
convicts should be reflected in their treatment and management. For
example, accused persons should not be subject to the same rules and
regulations as convicts. In this respect, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that accused persons shall,
save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons
and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as
unconvicted persons.21 Further, the ICCPR states that accused children
should be separated from adults and brought as speedily as possible for
adjudication.22
(b) Accused Persons Right to Liberty. Every accused person has the right to
liberty. As a general rule, therefore, every accused person should not be
detained, but should be released subject to his/her guarantee to appear
for trial. Pretrial detention should therefore be a measure of last resort,
and the criminal justice institutions should make every reasonable effort
to avoid pretrial detention.23
20
The principles have been drawn from the following instruments: (1) United Nations
Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Non-Custodial Measures; (2) United Nations
Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice; (3) United Nations Declaration
of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, G.A. Res. 40/34 (November 29, 1985); (4) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966; (5) African Charter of
Human and Peoples Rights 1981; (6) African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child 1990;
(7) European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950;
(8) United Nations Basic Principles for Treatment of Prisoners, G.A. Res. A/45/49 (December 12,
1990); (9) the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; and, (10) African Union, Draft Guidelines on the Use and Conditions of Police Custody and Pre Trial Detention
in Africa Discussion Document, 21 February 2013.
21
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10(2)(a).
22
Ibid, Article 10(2)(b).
23 See United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Non-Custodial
General Principles
(c) Accuseds obligation to attend trial. Bail and bond provide guarantees
that accused persons will attend trial. They are securities that aim to
procure the release of an accused person from legal custody together
with an undertaking that he or she will appear for trial.
(d) Right to Reasonable Bail and Bond Terms: Bail or bond amounts and
conditions shall be reasonable, given the importance of the right to
liberty and the presumption of innocence. This means that bail or bond
amounts and conditions shall be no more than is necessary to guarantee
the appearance of an accused person for trial. Accordingly, bail or bond
amounts should not be excessive, that is, they should not be far greater
than is necessary to guarantee that the accused person will appear for his
or her trial. Conversely, bail or bond amounts should not be so low that the
accused person would be enticed into forfeiting the bail or bond amount
and fleeing. Secondly, bail or bond conditions should be appropriate to
the offence committed and take into account the personal circumstances
of the accused person. In the circumstances, what is reasonable will be
determined by reference to the facts and circumstances prevailing in
each case.24
Since the ultimate goal of bail or bond is to guarantee that an accused
person attends his or her trial, it is important to underscore that Article
49(2) of the Constitution does not necessarily mean that all persons
accused of committing offences that are punishable by a fine only or by
imprisonment for not more than six months are entitled to free bonds
or release on personal recognizance. Accordingly, in this context police
officers and judicial officers have the power to impose appropriate bail
or bond terms when releasing such offenders. Unless they do so, there
is a real probability that many persons who are charged with offences
that attract only fines or that attract imprisonment for six months or less,
will not bother to turn up in court for their trials [thereby increasing] the
volumes of pending cases in leaps and bounds.25
(e) Bail determination must balance the rights of the accused persons and
the interest of justice. On the one hand, police officers and judicial
officers should endeavor to preserve the liberty of an accused person,
who is presumed to be innocent and should be allowed to keep the fabric
of his or her life intact by, for example, maintaining employment and
family and community ties. Preserving the liberty of an accused person
Measures, Article 6; United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile
Justice, Article 13.
24
Republic v Taiko Kitende Muinya [2010] eKLR.
25
Republic v Joseph Wambua Mutunga & 3 others [2010] eKLR.
General Principles
also permits him or her to take an active part in the planning of his or her
defense. On the other hand, the State has a duty to prosecute those who
commit crimes, which may entail qualifying the individual right to liberty.
The State has a duty to ensure public safety between the time of arrest and
trial of accused persons, and a duty to protect the integrity of the criminal
justice system. This means that where there is convincing evidence that
an accused person may undermine the integrity of the criminal justice
system, by, for example, intimidating witnesses or interfering with the
evidence, then a need arises to either deny such a person bail or bond,
or set stringent bail or bond terms. Equally, where there is convincing
evidence that the accused person will endanger a particular individual
(for example, victims of the crime) or the public at large, or even commit
a serious crime, it also becomes necessary to subject an accused person
to pretrial detention. The interests of justice therefore demand the
protection of the investigation and prosecution process against probable
hindrance by accused persons. It is therefore important for police officers
and judicial officers to appreciate that the public have an interest in the
effective prosecution of offences.
In appreciating the need to balance the rights of accused persons with
the interests of justice, the Constitution states that an accused person can
only be denied bail or bond where the court establishes that there are
compelling reasons not to be released. That is, while the Constitution
stipulates that every accused person is presumptively entitled to bail or
bond, it permits the denial of bail or bond where the prosecution presents
convincing evidence to justify such denial. In denying an accused person
bail or bond, it must therefore be demonstrated with convincing evidence
that his or her release will present risks, and that such risks cannot be
managed, even with the attachment of appropriate conditions.
(f) Consideration for the rights of victims. Police officers and judicial officers
should consider the views of victims before making decisions that affect
them. In particular, police officers and judicial officers should consider
the safety of victims and victims families in fixing the amount of bail
and the release conditions for suspects and accused persons. Second,
victims should be informed about bail conditions imposed on suspects
and accused persons, particularly those designed to protect victims and
victims families. Third, victims who have so requested should be kept
informed about any bail applications made by suspects and accused
persons, and the outcomes of such applications.
10
Bail and Bond in the Police Station Situational Analysis
4.
Bail and Bond Decision-Making

Bail and Bond in the Police Station
4.1
At the Police Station, a suspect may be released on cash bail, with or without
sureties, or personal (free) bond or recognizance. The Police Force Standing
Orders26 require the officer in charge of a police station to release any person
arrested on a minor charge on the security of cash bail, as a general rule,
unless the officer has good grounds for believing that the arrested person will
not attend court when required to do so.27 This cash bail should be handed
into court by the date on which the arrested person should appear in court,
and a receipt obtained.28 In case a person who has been released on bail fails
to appear in court, the officer in charge of the police station should apply to
the magistrate for a warrant of arrest. At this point, the magistrate may either
order the cash bail to be forfeited (if it is demonstrated that there are sufficient
grounds that justify an order for forfeiture), or retained on court deposit until
such time as the accused person appears.29 It should be noted that the Police
Standing Orders are categorical that a person who is released from custody
on either bail or bond can only be required to appear before a magistrate on
a specified date, and that Under no circumstances will a prisoner who is
released on bond be required to appear at a police station or other place.30
Where the accused person violates bail or bond terms, the police should
cancel the bail or bond, re-arrest him or her, bring him or her to the police
station, and take him or her to court.
4.2
In practice, police decision-making on bail and bond can be unpredictable:

(a) First, police officers sometimes do not give bail and bond on reasonable
terms.31 In some cases, police officers deny accused persons bail as a
form of punishment. Further, police officers do not usually explain their
bail and bond decisions.
(b) Second, police officers only grant bail and bond to persons accused of
26 At the time of publication of these Policy Guidelines, the Police Service Standing Orders were
awaiting parliamentary approval to replace the Police Forces Standing Orders.
27
Police Force Standing Orders, Order 9(i).
28
Ibid, Order 9(ii).
29
Ibid, Order 9(iii).
30
Ibid, Order 9(x).
31
Task Force on Bail and Bond, Meeting with Stakeholders in the Justice Sector, Laico Regency, Nairobi, 26 August 2014.
11
Bail and Bond in the Police Station Situational Analysis

minor offences, and leave bail decision making in serious offences to
the courts. In the latter case, the accused person should be produced in
court within 24 hours of arrest. Accordingly, a person accused of serious
offences such as murder or robbery with violence is likely to be detained
in a police cell, and can only be released on bail once produced before
court.
(c) Third, police officers tend to detain persons who have committed petty
offences, contrary to Article 49(2) of the Constitution. Included in this
category are persons accused of committing offences such as loitering,
creating a disturbance, being drunk and disorderly, and possessing illicit
liquor. Even more disturbing, some police officers have detained persons
accused of committing offences that are not known to law, contrary to
section 50(n) of the Constitution, which gives an accused person the right
not to be convicted for an act or omission that was not an offence under
the law at the time of the commission or omission. A typical example is
the offence of city planning in respect of which several persons have
been arrested and detained at the Kamukunji Police Station in Nairobi.
(d) Fourth, many accused persons are unable to afford cash bail in amounts
as low as Kshs. 1000 due to poverty. Such persons are therefore detained
in police custody.
(e) Fifth, police officers typically do not inform accused persons that they
have a right to be released on bail and in some cases even extort bribes
from them.
(f) Sixth, because the public does not understand bail, it sometimes sees the
payment of cash bail as a bribe or payment of a fine, and consequently
perceives police officers as corrupt and at the same time lynches accused
persons released on bail. Indeed, police officers often detain some
accused persons for their own protection, on the basis that they might be
lynched if released on bail.
4.3
12
The administration of bail and bond in traffic offences presents special

challenges. Decision making here seems arbitrary, and the amount of bail
is left to the discretion of the Divisional Traffic Officer. Further, while the
police are concerned that there is a high rate of absconding (that is, failing to
attend court after paying cash bail), the public find the process of complying
with the requirement to attend court unduly punitive, particularly where the
offences are committed in locations where they do not reside. This is the
case, for example, where an offender is caught over-speeding in Naivasha
Bail and Bond in the Police Station Policy Directions

on a Sunday whilst heading to Kisumu where he or she resides. Typically,
the police would require such a person to appear before a Naivasha court
the following day. Court case backlogs and lengthy trial procedures have
also given police officers and traffic offenders an incentive to solicit and pay
bribes respectively. In such instances, police officers withdraw the charges
upon the offenders giving them the amount, or part, of the cash bail.
Policy Directions
4.4
From the foregoing, a need arises to regulate police decision-making with

respect to bail and bond. Police Officers should therefore take into account
the General Principles stipulated in Part 3 above whenever they make
decisions on bail and bond. In particular:
(a) Police officers shall inform suspects of the reasons for their arrest, and the
offence or offences for which they have been arrested.
(b) Police officers shall inform suspects that they have a right to be released
on bail on reasonable terms. Further, police officers shall inform arrested
persons that they have a right to be issued with an official receipt upon
paying cash bail.
(c) In granting bail or bond, a police officer may attach such conditions to
bail or bond as will be necessary to prevent the suspect from failing to
surrender to custody, committing an offence while on bail, interfering
with witnesses, or otherwise obstructing the course of justice.
(d) In determining the amount of cash bail, police officers should ensure that
the amount is such that it will secure the attendance of the suspect to his
or her trial.
(e) Cash bail shall be reasonable.
(f) Police officers shall take into account the circumstances in which the
crime in question was committed, the safety and security of any victims,
and the circumstances of the accused person, in determining whether
or not to grant bail. For example, offences that are committed while an
accused person is in transit such as traffic offences may require police
officers to grant cash bail, since it may be difficult to trace the suspect
should he or she fail to attend trial.
13
Bail and Bond in the Police Station Policy Directions

(g) A police officer may place a suspect in protective custody where such
a measure is necessary to protect the suspect, for example, where it is
demonstrated that the community may harm the suspect if he or she is
released from police custody.
(h) Where a suspect has committed a petty offence, and the police officer
determines that he or she is not a flight risk, the police officer should
give the suspect a free bond. That is, the police officer should release the
accused person on his own recognizance, or with a surety.
(i) Police officers shall inform suspects of the reasons for the denial of bail
or bond, and the conditions attached to bail or bond in cases where they
have decided to grant bail or bond.
(j) Police officers should release suspects who are children or vulnerable
persons on a recognizance being entered into by his or her parent or
guardian or other responsible person, with or without sureties, for such
amounts as will, in the opinion of the officer, secure the attendance of
the child or vulnerable person.32 In the case of suspects who are children,
police officers shall consider the best interests of the child in making
these decisions.
(k) In minor traffic cases, police officers may issue a notice to attend court on
a day not more than fourteen days from the date of the alleged offence.
(l) Police officers should establish a system for accounting for all arrested
persons. In this regard, each police station should have an electronic
register linked to a central data center.
(m) Victims of crime are entitled to be informed of developments in their
case, including the decision to grant a suspect bail or bond, and any
conditions attached thereto.
(n) Police officers shall inform victims of any decision to put suspects in
custody, and the date on which he or she will appear in court. Further,
police officers shall advise victims to report any alleged violations of the
bail or bond terms.
(o) Once the accused person has appeared in court, or the case file has been
sent to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution (ODPP), it shall be
the responsibility of the ODPP to keep victims informed of developments
32 Child Offender Rules, Fifth Schedule, Children Act, No. 8 of 2001, Rule 5.
14
Bail and Bond in the Courts Situational Analysis

in their case, including court decisions granting an accused person bail
or bond, and any conditions attached thereto.
(p) Any person who alleges that a police officer has violated any of the
foregoing requirements of this Policy may report the matter to the
Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) whose function is to
hold the police accountable to the public in the performance of their
functions.33
Bail and Bond in the Courts
4.5
The courts have powers under the Constitution and the CPC to admit an
accused person to bail or to release him or her upon executing a bond with
sureties for his or her appearance. The exercise of these powers entails the
performance of the following judicial and administrative functions:
(a) Determining whether or not an accused person should be granted bail;
(b) Determining the amount of bail;
(c) Attaching suitable conditions to the grant of bail;
(d) Verifying security documents;
(e) Approving sureties;
(f) Releasing accused persons who have been granted bail from police
custody or prisons;
(g) Committing accused persons who have been denied bail to police custody
or prisons; and
(h) Reviewing bail terms and conditions.
4.6
The performance of the foregoing judicial and administrative functions has

been characterized by numerous challenges.
4.7
First, there is no uniformity in how the courts determine whether or not to

grant accused persons bail, both in terms of procedure and substance. As a
33
Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act 2011, section 3(5)(a).
15

result, it is difficult for accused persons to predict how their bail applications
will be determined.
4.8
At present, there is no procedure for applying for bail. In many magistrates

courts, the practice is that an accused person who seeks to be released on
bail pending trial will raise his or her hand when arraigned in court and
request the presiding judicial officer for bail. Alternatively, the magistrate
grants bail to the accused person without any such application, and therefore
without establishing from the accused person whether or not the bail terms
are affordable. Any accused person who complains about the bail terms is
simply told to seek a review from the court that is to conduct the hearing.
Although some magistrates courts inquire from accused persons whether
they can afford bail, they find this approach to be time consuming due to their
heavy workloads. Conversely, an accused person who seeks to be released
on bail in the High Court is required to make a formal application, failure to
which the application will often not be considered.
4.9
In terms of substance, the primary factor considered by the courts in bail

decision-making is whether the accused person will appear for trial if granted
bail. A particular challenge the courts face since the promulgation of the
Constitution of 2010 is determining the existence of compelling reasons for
denying an accused person bail, particularly in serious offences. According
to the decisions of the courts, the determination of whether there are
compelling reasons that can justify the denial of bail should be made by
evaluating whether or not the accused person will attend his or her trial. In
practice, the courts have made this evaluation by considering the following
non-exhaustive factors:
(a) The nature of the charge or offence and the seriousness of the
punishment to be meted if the accused person is found guilty. Where
the charge against the accused person is serious, and the punishment
heavy, the courts assume that there are more probabilities and incentives
for the accused person to abscond, whereas in case of minor offences
there may be no such incentives.34
(b) The strength of the prosecution case. An accused person should not
be subjected to pretrial detention where the evidence against him or
her is tenuous, even if the charge is serious. Conversely, it may be
justifiable to subject an accused person to pretrial detention where
the evidence against the accused person is strong. For example, where
all the prosecution witnesses have testified, and the accused person is
34 Watoro v Republic (1991) KLR 220; Republic v Danson Mgunya & another [2010] eKLR; Jennifer Atieno Oduol v Republic [2006] eKLR.
16

aware of the weight of the prosecutions case against him or her, it is
presumed that such a person has an incentive to abscond and should
therefore be denied bail.35
(c) Character and antecedents of the accused person. Although the
character and antecedents of the accused person do not by themselves
form the basis for denial of bail or bond, they may justify the refusal of
bail or bond if they are coupled with other adverse factors.
(d) The failure of the accused person to observe bail or bond terms on
previous occasions is a good ground for denying bail or bond.
(e) Likelihood of interfering with witnesses. Where there is a likelihood
that the accused will interfere with prosecution witnesses if released on
bail or bond, he or she may be denied bail or bond. However, bail or
bond will only be denied if (i) there is strong evidence of the likelihood
of interfering with prosecution witnesses, which is not rebutted, and
(ii) the court cannot impose conditions to the bail or bond to prevent
such interference. For example, where the accused person has been
provided with witness statements, and therefore knows the identities
of the prosecution witnesses and the nature of the evidence that these
witnesses will adduce at trial, there is a real likelihood that the accused
person may contact the witnesses. The likelihood that such an accused
person may contact witnesses could probably inflict genuine fear and
anxiety in the potential prosecution witnesses, and therefore constitutes
a compelling reason for the denial of bail.36 In this regard, defilement
cases present a special challenge. The country is not only experiencing
an upsurge in defilement cases, but many such cases are compromised
as soon as accused persons are released on bail. This happens because
the families of the accused person and the victim usually negotiate to
settle the cases out of court. Some courts are dealing with this challenge
by denying accused persons bail until witnesses, especially the victim,
have testified in such cases. The courts have adopted the same approach
in murder cases, particularly where the witnesses are closely related to
the accused person.37
(f) The need to protect the victim or victims of the crime from the accused
person.
(g) The relationship between the accused person and potential witnesses.
Here, the courts reason that if the accused person is either related to
35 See, e.g., Republic v Margaret Nyaguthi Kimeu [2013] eKLR.
36
Republic v Joseph Wambua Mutunga & 3 others [2010] eKLR.
37 See, e.g., Republic v Lucy Njeri Waweru & 3 others [2013] eKLR.
17

the witnesses or stands in a position of influence vis--vis the potential
witnesses, there could arise a legitimate anxiety about the impact the
accused person might have on the witnesses, if he or she is released
pending trial.38 However, this factor does not inexorably dictate that the
accused person should be denied bail. Instead, it may simply require
the police or the court to attach suitable bond or bail conditions to
ensure that the relationship between the accused person and potential
witnesses does not undermine the interests of justice.
(h) Child offenders. Where the accused person is a minor, the denial of
bail or bond is considered not to be in the best interests of the accused
person, who is a minor.
(i) The accused person is a flight risk. Where the accused person is a
foreigner who does not have a fixed abode or hosts in the country and
Kenya does not have an extradition treaty with the accused persons
country, there is a presumption that he or she is a flight risk and may
therefore fail to attend trial if granted bail or bond.39 The rationale for
this presumption is that it would be impossible to prevail upon such
a country to return its national to Kenya to be prosecuted should they
abscond after being granted bond or bail.40
(j) Whether accused person is gainfully employed. The courts also consider
the fact that an accused person is gainfully employed to enhance the
likelihood that he or she will attend trial. However, it should not matter
whether or not the accused person is a casual laborer or is engaged in
permanent and pensionable employment. Accordingly, the fact that the
accused person is a casual laborer should not, in itself, constitute the
basis upon which the court determines whether or not to grant bail.41
(k) Public order, peace or security. Whether the release of an accused
person will disturb public order or undermine public peace or security.42
Pretrial detention may be necessary to preserve public order where
it is demonstrated that the public response to an offence is such that
the release of the accused person would be likely to lead to a public
disturbance.
38 See, e.g., Republic v Taiko Kitende Muinya [2010] eKLR.

39 See, e.g., Republic v Ahmad Abolafathi Mohamed & another [2013] eKLR.
40
Ibid.
41 See, e.g., Republic v Joseph Wambua Mutunga & 3 others [2010] eKLR.
42 See, e.g., Republic v Pascal Ochieng Lawrence [2014] eKLR.
18

(l) Protection of the accused person. Whether pretrial detention is
necessary to protect the accused person.43
Although courts are supposed to be guided by these factors in their bail
decision-making, they do not always explain their decisions. This leads, for
example, to situations in which one magistrate denies bail while another
allows bail in similar circumstances. It is also important for the courts to
recognize that due to personnel and resources constraints, accused persons
often spend inordinately long periods in detention before their cases are
concluded. In addition, courts have tended to deny accused persons bail
on the ground only that they face grave charges, without considering other
factors.44
4.10 Courts face a number of challenges in making bail decisions. In the case of
bail pending trial, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish the
existence of compelling reasons that would justify the denial of bail, or the
imposition of suitable bail terms and conditions. Some courts have required
the prosecution to present cogent, very strong and specific evidence in
order to justify the denial of bail.45 Mere allegations or suspicion will not be
sufficient. According to these courts, where the prosecution opposes bail, it
must support its objection with cogent reasons and facts, and it is not enough
to make bare objections and insinuations.46
4.11 However, what is the appropriate standard of proof? For example, where
the prosecution alleges that an accused person will interfere with witnesses,
should it prove this allegation on a balance of probabilities or beyond
reasonable doubt in order to persuade the court? And what form of evidence
should the prosecution present to persuade the courts of the existence of
compelling reasons? Although some courts insist that the prosecution must
produce an affidavit sworn by the investigating officer,47 others do not.48 But
even where the prosecution has presented such affidavits, some courts have
not been persuaded that they meet the compelling reasons threshold, much
to the disappointment of investigating officers. Second, how can the court
43
Ibid.
44
See, e.g, Jennifer Atieno Oduol v Republic [2006] eKLR.
45 See, e.g., Republic v Muneer Harron Ismail & 4 others [2010] eKLR.
46
Republic of Kenya, Bench Book for Magistrates in Criminal Proceedings 33 (2004).
47 See, e.g., Aboud Rogo Mohamed & Another v Republic [2011] eKLR; Gichuki v Republic
[2005] eKLR.
48
See, e.g., Republic v John Kahindi Karisa & 2 others [2010] eKLR (stating that I do not
think it was necessary for the Republic to file an affidavit to prove or substantiate such fears or
misapprehensions, namely that the accused person presented a huge risk of flight and were likely
to interfere with witnesses and evidence).
19

make a bail determination without compromising the accused persons
right to a fair and unbiased trial? Third, how can courts obtain the accurate,
relevant, and verified information they require to make fair bail decisions?
Unfortunately, the nature of our adversarial system is such that the information
furnished to the court on behalf of bail applicants is not always reliable, while
the prosecution may prefer that the accused person be detained pending
trial for various reasons. Further, because courts do not have systems for
verifying such information, they may not always make fair and appropriate
bail decisions. It may therefore be necessary for courts to seek independent
information if they are to make fair and appropriate bail decisions.
4.12 Such bail information could, for example, be obtained from the Probation
and Aftercare Service, which prepares bail reports at the request of the court.
However, the integrity of such independent information cannot be taken for
granted. In any case, the courts are not obliged to use bail reports, with the
effect that while some courts use them, others do not. Nevertheless, because
of severe resource and personnel constraints, it is doubtful whether the
Probation and Aftercare Service would manage were the Judiciary to make
bail reports mandatory in all cases. A potential drawback of the bail reports
is that they may contain information that is prejudicial to the accused person
(such as previous convictions), which may make it necessary for the courts to
separate bail determinations from the trial. In addition, given the influential
role that probation officers increasingly play in bail determinations, accused
persons and their families may offer them bribes to influence their reports.
Mechanisms should therefore be established to ensure the integrity of bail
reports.
4.13 All in all, addressing the foregoing challenges may require courts to hold
bail hearings. Some courts already hold proceedings akin to bail hearings.
These courts require the prosecution to produce an affidavit sworn by the
investigating officer, giving what it considers to be the compelling reasons
why an accused person should be denied bail, require the prosecution to
serve the accused person or his or her lawyer with the affidavit, give the
accused person or his or her lawyer an opportunity to respond to the affidavit,
call for a bail report, and make a bail decision on the basis of the information
obtained from this process.
4.14 Courts also face a challenge in enforcing the requirement of the Constitution
that an arrested person should be brought before a court of law as soon
as reasonably practicable, but not later than twenty-four hours after being
arrested. In this respect, it is important to appreciate that the police often
work under difficult circumstances. As one court has observed, In a country
where the police/citizen ratio is so low, where investigative facilities are
20

wanting, yet crime rate is on the increase, the police have to exert themselves
to the full to beat the constitutional time limit of arraigning accused persons
in a court of law and occasionally there may be some delay.49 Accordingly,
where the police have not completed their investigations before the expiry of
the twenty-four hour rule, the emerging practice is that the courts will, upon
request, allow the police to continue holding the accused person pending
the completion of investigations, provided the police give a genuine and
sufficient explanation.50 However, the duration of such extended detention
is not rationalized and is left entirely to the discretion of the court. And so
some courts grant the police only two or three days, while others grant them
up to fourteen days. Where the police fail to comply with these timelines, the
courts release the accused persons.
4.15 It should be noted that the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2012 (POTA) stipulates
different timelines for terrorism cases. In the first instance, POTA provides
that a police officer who has detained a suspect may apply in writing to
the court to extend the time for holding the suspect in custody for a period
of up to thirty days.51 Before this this period expires, the police officer may
again apply to the court to extend the period of detention.52 However, POTA
stipulates that the court can only extend the time for remand for such a
period as shall not, together with the period for which the suspect was first
remanded in custody, exceed ninety days.53
4.16 Second, bail amounts are sometimes unreasonable, or unaffordable for
the majority of accused persons. It is not clear how courts determine the
amount of bail for example, whether they consider any factors, and what
those factors are. Among other things, this lack of clarity makes it difficult
for advocates to advise clients on how much money they should prepare
for cash bail. Disparities in the exercise of judicial discretion have also
led to the imposition of bail amounts that are either unreasonably high or
unreasonably low in comparison to the offence committed. For example, it is
not unusual that a person accused of obtaining Ksh. 8,000 will be required
to pay a cash bail of Ksh. 50,000. In addition, where two or more persons
are accused of the same offence, the courts tend to set uniform bail terms
for all of them, without distinguishing their circumstances.54 Further, there is
no uniformity in how courts approach bail. In Nairobi, for example, accused
49 Erick Mokaya Mochoge & 2 others v Republic [2008] eKLR, per Justice Musinga.
50
Ibid.
51
Prevention of Terrorism Act, section 33(7).
52
53
54 See, e.g., Republic v Muneer Harron Ismail & 4 others [2010] eKLR.
21

persons prefer to be arraigned before the Makadara courts, which, in contrast
to the Milimani courts, are perceived to be more lenient in granting bail.
To enhance uniformity in bail decision-making, some courts have tried to
standardize their approaches. In Kitale, for example, the courts have a policy
of giving cash bail of at least Ksh. 300,000 in defilement cases and Ksh.
500,000 in robbery with violence cases.
4.17 Courts sometimes impose stringent bail terms for simple traffic offences,
such as Ksh. 30,000 for causing obstruction. There is a strong perception that
courts have adopted a punitive policy in traffic offences, whereby accused
persons are encouraged to plead guilty and those who plead not guilty are
subjected to punitive bail terms.
4.18 Third, it is sometimes unpredictable whether or not courts will attach
conditions to the grant of bail, and what those conditions will be. Bail
conditions do not appear to be rationalized. It is not clear, for example, when
the courts will require a bond with surety or sureties, or a personal bond.
Courts do not usually justify the requirement of multiple sureties as opposed
to only one. Indeed, many accused persons find it difficult to produce two or
more sureties, and take the view that a single surety should suffice. Section
124 of the CPC leaves these important determinations to the discretion of
the court. Under this provision, the court may impose any bond terms that
it deems sufficient. The only explanation the courts have given here is that
they ordinarily refrain from granting accused persons free bonds due to high
rates of absconding in such cases. Again, there are claims that courts impose
onerous bond terms even for petty offences. Another limitation is that the
courts do not permit accused persons to rely on their own property to secure
their freedom.
4.19 Fourth, there are no uniform procedures for processing and releasing
accused persons who have posted bail. The process of posting bail, including
approving sureties, is sometimes characterized by administrative bottlenecks,
which considerably delay the release from custody of accused persons who
have been granted bail. Further, the process of approving sureties takes
considerable amounts of time, and therefore consumes much of the courts
scarce time.
4.20 Fifth, the requirement of property in surety bonds and the verification of
security documents have presented considerable challenges. In this respect,
section 126 of the CPC provides that When a person may be required by
a court or officer to execute a bond, with or without sureties, the court or
officer may, except in the case of a bond for good behavior, require him to
22

deposit a sum of money to such amount as the court or officer may fix, or to
deposit property, in lieu of executing a bond. Some courts have interpreted
this provision to mean that a surety must produce either a title deed, or a
motor vehicle logbook, or a pay slip. Accordingly, these courts have declined
to accept other forms of security documents. A second challenge is that
courts do not have the resources or capacity to verify the authenticity of
security documents such as title deeds and motor vehicle logbooks. This
has led to many courts holding onto worthless security documents. Many
courts have now entrusted the verification of such documents to investigating
officers, although they have not established the time-lines within which such
verification is supposed to occur. But this procedure means that accused
persons will stay in detention for considerable durations. A further challenge
is that accused persons or their relatives sometimes compromise investigating
officers to give them favorable verification reports. As a result, some courts
now require these officers to produce sworn affidavits of verification in
an effort to hold them accountable. Even where sureties present genuine
security documents but accused persons abscond, courts face considerable
challenges in realizing the securities since there are no clear procedures for
this exercise.
4.21 Sixth, it is not always clear whether or not, and on what basis, courts
will review bail terms and conditions. Although some magistrates courts
continually review their bail decisions as circumstances change, others do
not and advise accused persons to seek redress from the High Court, which
is empowered by the CPC to review the bail decisions of the police and
magistrates courts. But even where the courts review their bail decisions,
their reasoning is not always clear. Further, accused persons do not always
have sufficient opportunities to request courts to review their bail decisions.
For example, because of crowded court diaries, it is not uncommon for an
accused person to appear before a judicial officer every three or four months.
This is contrary to the proviso to Section 205(1) of the CPC, which clearly
states that a court may adjourn the hearing of a case, Provided that no
such adjournment shall be for more than thirty clear days, or, if the accused
person has been committed to prison, for more than fifteen clear days, the
day following that on which the adjournment is made being counted as the
first day (emphasis supplied).
4.22 Seventh, the power of the courts to bond suspects to keep the peace under
the CPC is sometimes abused, leading to many individuals being needlessly
detained in police custody and prisons. According to section 43(1) of the
CPC, where a person informs a magistrate that a person is likely to commit a
breach of the peace or disturb public tranquility, or do any wrongful act that
23
Bail and Bond in the Courts Policy Directions

may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility,
the magistrate can, after examining the informant on oath, require the person
in respect of whom the information is laid to show cause why he should not
be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace
for such period, not exceeding one year, as the magistrate thinks fit. Further,
section 46 of the CPC provides that where the magistrate is informed that a
person is a habitual criminal, the magistrate may, among other things, require
that person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond,
with sureties, for his good behavior for such period, not exceeding three
years, as the magistrate thinks fit. In either case, where the magistrate deems
it necessary to require such a person to show cause, section 47 of the CPC
requires the magistrate to make an order in writing setting out the substance
of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the
term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character, and class of
securities, if any, required. Further, section 58 of the CPC provides that if
a person ordered to give security fails to do so, he shall be committed to
prison, although the High Court may review such orders but only where they
exceed one year.
4.23 Courts do not always adhere to these procedures in practice, with the result
that some individuals are detained unlawfully.55 Nevertheless, the major
problem with these procedures is that because many such persons are
not able to afford the bond terms set by the court, they end up in prison,
sometime for long periods,56 yet they have not been charged with committing
any specific crime.
4.24 In many cases, the courts have not involved the victims of crime, or taken
their interests into account, in their bail decision-making. This partly explains
why the public often sees bail as unconditional release of accused persons,
and why it has resorted to lynching such persons in some cases.
Policy Directions
4.25 Courts should hold bail hearings where the prosecution opposes a bail
application or where the court deems it fit, proceed to inquire into the
55
See, e.g., Mwagona & 3 others v Republic [1990] KLR; Antony Njenga Mbuti v Republic [2013] eKLR; Martin Wangombe Weru & 7 others v Republic [2013] eKLR (magistrate failed
to conduct inquiry to confirm veracity of information presented by police officer); Jacton Mlaivu
Malalo & 6 others v Republic [2010] eKLR (police found to have abused section 46 of the CPC,
and applicants released on basis that they had been penalized on the basis of mere allegations).
56 See, e.g., Antony Njenga Mbuti v Republic [2013] eKLR, where the persons bonded to
keep the peace were detained in prison for twenty-two months for inability to execute a bond of
Ksh. 50,000 with a surety of like sum for two years.
24

circumstances of the accused person even if there is no opposition from the
prosecution.
4.26 The following procedures should apply to the bail hearing:
(a) The prosecution shall satisfy the court, on a balance of probabilities,57
of the existence of compelling reasons that justify the denial of bail. The
prosecution must, therefore, state the reasons that in its view should
persuade the court to deny the accused person bail, including the
following:
a. That the accused person is likely to fail to attend court proceedings;
or
b. That the accused person is likely to commit, or abet the commission
of, a serious offence; or
c. That the exception to the right to bail stipulated under Section
123A of the Criminal Procedure Code is applicable in the
circumstances; or
d. That the accused person is likely to endanger the safety of victims,
individuals or the public; or
e. That the accused person is likely to interfere with witnesses or
evidence; or
f. That the accused person is likely to endanger national security; or
g. That it is in the public interest to detain the accused person in
custody.
(b) The accused person shall be entitled to the disclosure of any information
relied upon by the prosecution in objecting to bail, provided that there is
no good reason for withholding such information, such as the protection
of witnesses or the preservation of national security.
(c) The court may request for a bail report where it considers that it does not
have sufficient information to make a fair and appropriate bail decision,
including the following instances:
a. Where there is doubt on the information on the accused person
relating to the grant of bail; or
b. Where the prosecution objects to bail, with plausible reasons; or
c. Where the accused person has been granted bail but fails to meet
bail terms and seeks review of those terms; or
57
Many countries accept the balance of probabilities as the appropriate standard of proof
in bail determinations. See, e.g., Bail Act 2013, section 32(1) (New South Wales), which provides
that Any matter that must be decided by a bail authority in exercising a function in relation to bail
is to be decided on the balance of probabilities.
25

d. Where the victim of the crime contests the grant of bail or applies
for review of bail conditions; or,
e. On the courts own motion where it deems necessary.
(d) Officers of the Probation and Aftercare Service should prepare bail
reports as soon as practicable but not later than two weeks from the time
of request.
(e) Where the court has called for a bail report, it shall give the prosecution
and the defense an equal opportunity to contest the findings of this report.
(f) The court shall give the victim or victims of the crime an opportunity to
submit any information that, in their view, the court should consider in
making its bail decision.58 Such information shall include information on
the safety of victims and their families.59 The views and concerns of victims
are particularly important in the case of offences against the person, such
as sexual offences, murder and domestic violence. However, the views
and concerns of the victim or victims shall be presented in a manner that
is not prejudicial to the rights of the accused person.60
(g) Before deciding whether to grant or deny the accused person bail, the
court shall give the accused person an opportunity to rebut the claims of
the prosecution and the victim or victims of the crime.
(h) In addition to the factors stipulated in Paragraph 4.9 above, the court
should consider, as appropriate, the following additional factors in
deciding whether to grant an accused person bail:
a. The period the accused person has already spent in custody since
arrest.
b. The probable period of detention until the conclusion of the trial
if the accused is not released on bail.
c. The reason or reasons for any delay in the conclusion of the trial
and any role of the accused with regard to such delay.
d. Change of circumstances during the trial.
e. The maximum custodial sentence in case the accused person is
convicted.
Provided that the courts should not deny an accused person bail if the
gravity of the charge is the only consideration before it. In other words,
58
59
60
26
Victim Protection Act 2014, section 20(1)(b).

Ibid, section 10(1)(b).
Victim Protection Act, section 9(2).

the seriousness of the alleged crime is not sufficient, by itself and in the
absence of any other relevant factor or factors, to justify the denial of
bail.
4.27 The bail report shall only contain information that will assist the court to
make a fair decision on whether or not to release the accused person on bail.
4.28 In making a bail decision in the case of accused persons who are children
and other persons with special needs (such as persons with special mental
health care needs, persons with disabilities and transgender prisoners), the
court should consider alternatives to remand such as close supervision or
placement with a fit person determined by the court.61 In such cases, courts
should resort to detention only as a last resort, taking into account the nature
and circumstances of the offence, and the risks that such persons pose to the
public.
4.29 The High Court may grant anticipatory bail, that is, bail pending arrest,
provided the applicant demonstrates that his or her right to liberty is likely
to be compromised or breached unlawfully by an organ of the state that is
supposed to protect this right.62 Further, the applicant must demonstrate that
the apprehension of arrest is real and not imagined or speculative.63
4.30 With respect to bail pending appeal, the burden of proof is on the convicted
person to demonstrate that there is an overwhelming probability that his or
her appeal will succeed.64
4.31 The court may impose any bail conditions it deems fit, including the following:
(a) Reporting requirements (for example, requiring the accused person to
report to a police station or court periodically);
(b) Contact restrictions (for example, requiring the accused person to refrain
from contacting victims and/or witnesses or otherwise behaving in a
manner that would distress them),
(c) Requiring the accused person to vacate his or her residence and reside
elsewhere for the duration of the trial,
(d) Requiring the accused person to surrender travel documents such as
61
Child Offender Rules, supra note 32, Rule 10(6).
62 See, e.g., Ibrahim Gichuhi Mugo v Inspector of Police [2013] eKLR.
63 See, e.g., Samuel Muciri W Njuguna v Republic, Miscellaneous Criminal Appeal No. 710
of 2002, High Court at Milimani Law Courts, Nairobi; Joseph Cherere Mwangi v Republic [2004]
eKLR.
64 See, e.g., Francis Ngobu v Republic [2013] eKLR; Charles Karuga Wahome v Republic
[2006] eKLR; James Nyamosi v Republic [2009] eKLR; Edward Aliau Kivuyo v Republic [2007]
eKLR; Imran Mallu v Republic [2006] eKLR; Henry Mbengo Rioba v Republic [2004] eKLR.
27

passports,
(e) Requiring accused person to submit to home visits.

Provided that bail conditions should be reasonable, proportionate

to the offence for which bail is granted, appropriate to the risks in
relation
to which they are imposed, and take into account the
individual circumstances of the accused person.
4.32 In the case of transnational crimes such as terrorism, drug trafficking and
piracy the court may impose the following conditions to the grant of bail:
(a) Requiring the accused, while on release, not to commit an offence,
interfere with witnesses or the investigations in relation to the offence for
which the suspect has been arrested;
(b) Requiring the accused person to avail himself or herself for the purpose
of facilitating the conduct of investigations and the preparation of any
report to be submitted to the court dealing with the matter in respect of
which the suspect stands accused; or
(c) Requiring the accused person to appear at such a time and place as the
court may specify for the purpose of conducting preliminary proceedings
or the trial or for the purpose of assisting the police with their inquiries.
4.33 In order to enhance consistency and transparency in bail decision-making,
courts have a duty to provide reasons for their decisions to deny bail, and
also provide reasons where they have attached conditions to the grant of bail.
4.34 Courts have a duty to inform the victims of crime of their bail decisions,
including the conditions attached to the grant of bail.
4.35 Where a court has granted an accused person bail, it shall issue the accused
person with a written notice requiring him or her to appear before a court on a
specified day, time, and date, and indicating any conduct requirements it has
imposed. The notice should also explain the consequences that may follow
should the accused person fail to comply with any of the bail conditions. The
accused person should sign this notice before he or she is released, as an
acknowledgement that he or she understands the conditions of bail.
4.36 Courts shall inform accused persons of their rights to apply for review of bail
decisions and conditions. Bail decisions and conditions should be reviewed
on a regular basis, as the circumstances of the accused person and the case
change.
28

4.37 Where the police wish to continue detaining an accused person following his
or her arraignment within twenty-four hours of arrest for example, because
investigations are incomplete and they are able to satisfy the court that
there are reasonable grounds that necessitate continued detention, the court
should issue an order for the continued detention of the accused person for
a period not exceeding fourteen days. Provided that in issuing this order, the
court should justify any such period of continued detention.
4.38 In terrorism cases, the court may, in the first instance and upon the written
request of a police officer, extend the time for holding the suspect in custody
for a period of up to thirty days.65 Before this period expires, the court may
extend the period of detention, upon an application of the police officer.66
However, the court can only extend the time for remand for a period not
exceeding ninety days, which shall include the period for which the suspect
was first remanded in custody.67
4.39 Courts should give reasonable bond terms to suspects whom they have
committed to keep the peace. Such bond terms should facilitate the suspects
to be released to keep the peace in their communities and not to be held in
custody. Further, courts shall ensure strict adherence to the provisions of the
CPC governing the bonding of suspects to keep the peace.
4.40 When considering the suitability of a proposed surety, the court should take
the following factors into account:
(a) Financial resources;
(b) Character and any previous convictions;
(c) Relationship to the accused person;
(d) Any other relevant factor.
The proposed surety should attest to these factors. Further, the prosecutor
should participate in this process of approving sureties.
4.41 Courts should ensure that sureties understand their obligations and the risks
they assume when they undertake to serve as sureties. Once the court accepts
a person as a surety, it should explain his or her obligations, and require him
or her to sign a notice of undertaking of bail, setting out the accused persons
bail conditions and the consequences for the surety if the accused person
breaches those conditions.
65 Prevention of Terrorism Act, section 33(7).
66 Ibid, section 33(8).
67 Ibid, section 33(9).
29
Supervision of Bail and Bond Terms and Conditions
4.42 Where an accused person applies for a review of the conditions of bail,
the surety should be informed of the application and the nature and likely
consequences of the variation sought.
4.43 Courts may accept the following as security documents, among others: title
deeds, motor vehicle log books, pay slips, bank drafts, insurance bonds.
5.
Supervision of Bail and Bond Terms and Conditions

5.1
Once a court has granted an accused person bail, and attached the conditions
thereto that are deemed necessary to ensure that the accused person attends
court as and when required, there ought to be mechanisms for effectively
monitoring the accused person in appropriate cases. This is the objective of
bail supervision, whose aim is not only to assist such accused persons to attend
court as and when required, but also to comply with bail conditions, such as
refraining from interfering with witnesses. In this sense, the mechanisms for
monitoring an accused person should be based on the risks he or she poses
as determined at a bail hearing. Bail supervision entails tasking a Probation
Officer to supervise an accused person who has been released on bail, with
the goal of ensuring that the accused person complies with bail conditions
and attends court as and when required.
5.2
Unfortunately, Kenya does not have a bail supervision system at present. As a

result, the enforcement of bail conditions is not effective. This partly explains
why there is a high rate of absconding among persons granted bail or bond,
particularly free bonds and cash bail.68
5. 3 The problem of absconding is exacerbated by lapses in the approval of sureties,

who should play a critical role in ensuring that accused persons attend court
and adhere to bail conditions. It is the responsibility of the court, working
together with the prosecution and the police, to determine the suitability of
sureties. However, it seems that there are no clear procedures for the approval
of sureties, given the different practices adopted by the subordinate courts
and the High Court. Indeed, the police have complained that the courts do
not involve them in the verification of sureties, yet somehow expect them to
trace accused persons who have absconded.
68 Migai Akech & Sarah Kinyanjui, Pretrial Detention in Kenya: Balancing the Rights of Criminal
Defendants and the Interests of Justice 71 (2011).
30
Inter-Agency Coordination Situational Analysis

Policy Directions
5. 4 Accused persons released on bail will be placed under the supervision of the
Probation and Aftercare Service, or chiefs or police officers, in appropriate
cases to ensure that he or she adheres to bail or bond terms and conditions.
5. 5 Where it is brought to the attention of the court that an accused person has
failed to adhere to the terms of bail, the court shall summon the accused
person to show cause why the terms of bail should not be revoked. Where
the accused person does not honor the summons, or furnish the court with a
reasonable explanation, the court may vary or revoke the bail terms.
6.
Inter-Agency Coordination, Oversight of Places of Detention,

and Public Awareness
6.1
Protecting the pretrial rights of accused persons and safeguarding the interests
of justice requires effective coordination and cooperation among the criminal
justice institutions.
6.2
In addition to the right to be presumed innocent, and the right to bail on

reasonable conditions unless there are compelling reasons not to be released,
the Constitution grants accused persons the right to be held separately from
persons who are serving a sentence, the right to be brought to court as
soon as reasonably possible but not later than twenty-four hours after being
arrested, the right to legal counsel, and the right to have the trial begin and
conclude without reasonable delay.69 As we have noted, the CPC also seeks
to protect the right to a speedy trial of an accused person who has been
detained in prison by stipulating that a court shall not adjourn the hearing of
his or her case for more than fifteen days.70 It should also be emphasized that
a pretrial detainee retains all the rights and fundamental freedoms in the
Bill of Rights, except to the extent that any particular right or a fundamental
freedom is clearly incompatible with the fact that the person is detained.71
For this reason, the Constitution stipulates that pretrial detainees must be
treated humanely, in accordance with the relevant international human
rights instruments.72 However, these safeguards are not extended to accused
persons in many cases. For example, cases are usually adjourned for periods
69 Constitution of Kenya 2010, Articles 49(1)(e), (f) & (h), Article 50(2) (e), (g) & (h).
70 Criminal Procedure Code, section 205(1).
71 Constitution of Kenya 2010, Article 51(1).
72 Ibid, Article 51(2) & (3).
31

of three to four months. Further, serious cases for example murder take an
average of four years to conclude.
6.3
Pretrial detainees often remain in custody for lengthy periods without having
been convicted of any offence thereby undermining the principle of the
presumption of innocence. In general, accused persons who are mentally ill
tend to experience longer periods of detention than their normal counterparts
since the judicial process of determining whether they are of sound mind and
hence capable of making their defense is not regulated.73 In practice, this
process can take up to five years.
6.4
The conditions of police stations and prisons are poor. These places of
detention are overcrowded since they house many more inmates than they
were designed to hold, and pretrial detainees make up almost half of the
prison population. Further, accused persons are detained in worse conditions
than convicts. This may be attributed to two factors. First, pretrial detention is
seen as a temporary circumstance with the ultimate goal being the dismissal of
charges, acquittal or conviction after trial. As a result, pretrial detention occurs
in facilities that are ill equipped to deliver health services or to house longterm residents, particularly police stations. Second, the law does not allow
pretrial detainees to participate in prison programs that facilitate recovery
and reentry into the community, since these programs are characterized as
rehabilitation programs. But a person who has not been convicted cannot by
definition be rehabilitated. Accordingly, there is an urgent need to open up
the conditions of pretrial detention to wider scrutiny, and to establish regular
monitoring and public reporting mechanisms.
6.5
The majority of pretrial detainees in Kenya are young, come from poor
families, and have little or no education.74 A good number of these pretrial
detainees are persons who have been charged with petty offences such as
creating a disturbance, loitering, brewing illicit liquor, touting, minor traffic
offences, simple thefts such as shoplifting, being drunk and disorderly, and
trespass.
6.6
Children are mixed with adults in the places of detention, contrary to the
requirements of the law. In some cases, these are children who are not in
conflict with the law, but have no one to take care of them outside the places
of detention. Nevertheless, such children are treated as prisoners, if only for
73 Section 162(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that When in the course of a trial or
committal proceedings the court has reason to believe that the accused is of unsound mind and
consequently incapable of making his defence, it shall inquire into the fact of unsoundness.
74 Ibid at 61.
32

purposes of accounting and providing for them. Another common problem
is that not only do boys and girls tend to reside in the same remand homes,
but also children in need of care and protection are often mixed with child
offenders. Indeed, it is not uncommon to find a boy who has been accused
of defilement being detained in a remand home together with the girl he is
accused of defiling. In such cases, the girls are often vulnerable from attack
by the boys.
6.7
As far as the transportation of detainees from places of detention to court

is concerned, the existing division of responsibility is that the National
Police Service (NPS) is responsible for transporting pretrial detainees, while
the Kenya Prisons Service (KPS) is responsible for transporting convicted
persons. In practice, however, the KPS transports pretrial detainees in some
cases, while in other cases the NPS collects pretrial detainees from prison
precincts and transports them to court. This arrangement is fraught with
considerable challenges. For example, the NPS sometimes delays or fails to
transport pretrial detainees, for example, due to lack of suitable vehicles or
fuel. As a result, the affected pretrial detainees end up missing their court
dates, thereby prolonging the duration of their detention and delaying their
trials. This problem also affects child offenders: the officers in charge of
children remand homes sometimes fail to take child offenders to court on
their scheduled dates, primarily due to the shortage of personnel.
6.8
Idleness among pretrial detainees is a major problem in prisons, since the

law prohibits them from working while in prison. Many pretrial detainees
see it as a severe form of enforced punishment. In this environment, it is easy
for petty offenders to be radicalized. And although the prisons endeavor to
stem such radicalization by separating petty offenders from serious offenders,
they are not usually successful given the high levels of congestion, and the
difficulty of preventing prisoners from interacting in the prison precincts.
Women have specific health and hygiene needs related to reproductive
health, including sanitary and washing facilities, and provision of hygiene
items such as sanitary towels, all of which they should be able to access
without embarrassment. Further, pregnant women detainees have specific
health needs and are entitled to adequate ante- and post-natal care. The
failure to meet these needs can amount to degrading treatment.
6.9
6.10 Accused persons with special needs (such as persons with special mental
health care needs, persons with disabilities and transgender prisoners) face
considerable challenges in places of detention, such as discrimination and
undignified treatment. Further, places of detention often do not accommodate
the needs of such accused persons.
33
Inter-Agency Coordination Policy Directions

6.11 There is little understanding of bail and bond amongst the public. Many
Kenyans have no knowledge of bail or bond, while a good number of those
who claim to understand bail and bond think it is money paid to the police
or the court for an accused person to be released from detention.75 Further,
a significant number of Kenyans view the grant of bail or bond to persons
accused of serious crimes as a great injustice. A need therefore arises to
enhance public understanding of bail and bond, with a view to increasing
the publics understanding and confidence in the process.
Policy Directions
6.12 In order for the rights of accused persons to be observed, cases should
be investigated and prosecuted in a timely manner, and pretrial detainees
should be transported to court on time whenever their cases are scheduled
for mentions or trials, and accused persons should be treated humanely in
places of detention.
6.13 The NPS and the KPS will ensure that every detained accused person is
treated humanely and with respect for his or her dignity. In this respect, the
NPS and the KPS have a duty to ensure that the detention of an accused
person is lawful, and that pretrial detainees enjoy their human rights, subject
only to the restrictions that are unavoidable in a closed environment. These
rights include the right not to be subjected to any form of torture or degrading
treatment. In particular, women should not be subjected to physical, sexual or
psychological violence while in detention. Further, all prisoners are entitled
to medical care according to their needs.
6.14 Judicial officers shall exercise their powers as visiting justices to ensure the
conditions of the places of detention meet the internationally recognized
minimum standards.76
6.15 Every police station should have a female police officer on duty at all times.
6.16 Women should be kept in separate quarters from men, and girls in separate
quarters from boys. Further, mothers with children should be provided with
separate accommodation.
6.17 The NPS and the KPS have a duty to ensure that the gender-specific health
and other needs of female detainees are met.
75 Akech & Kinyanjui, supra note 68 at 71.
76 Prisons Act, Chapter 90, Laws of Kenya, section 72(2).
34
Inter-Agency Coordination Policy Directions

6.18 Only female officers should attend to female detainees. Although male
officers may be assigned to detention premises set aside for women, a female
officer should always accompany them. But where this is not feasible, the
NPS and the KPS will ensure a minimum of female personnel and develop
clear procedures that minimize the probability that female detainees will be
abused or ill treated in any way.
6.19 In order to ensure that accused persons are treated in a manner that is
consistent with the Constitution and international human rights standards,
it is important for the NPS and KPS to keep proper records for each pretrial
detainee. Proper record keeping is an essential tool for preventing human
rights violations, such as the denial of due process, torture, or enforced
disappearance in custody.
6.20 Every police station and prison shall keep a register of all persons detained
therein, which shall contain the following information:
(a) The particulars of every detainee;
(b) The reasons for his or her detention, and the authority for his or her
commitment to detention;
(c) The date when regular reviews are due, whether the review took place,
and the outcome of the review;
(d) Any requests for access to medical or legal assistance;
(e) Any complaints made by the detainee;
(f) Health status of detainee at the time of entry into the detention; and
(g) Any other relevant information.
6.21 Every pretrial detainee has the right to complain to the NPS, the KPS, the
Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA), the Commission on the
Administration of Justice (CAJ) and the courts, which should respond without
undue delay. All such complaints should be recorded, and investigated
promptly and impartially. In particular, women alleging sexual abuse should
receive immediate protection and supervision during the investigation and
for as long as needed.
6.22 The NPS and KPS will respectively furnish the courts with monthly accounts
of the accused persons held on pretrial detention. These accounts should
include lists of those who have been granted bail but are unable to meet the
conditions set by the courts. The courts should use this information to ensure
that no accused persons are detained for unreasonable periods, they are
treated humanely in places of detention, and to facilitate the decongestion of
places of detention.
35
6.23 Where a pretrial detainee disappears during detention, the court shall
undertake a prompt inquiry into the disappearance.
6.24 The Judiciary will establish a case management system for criminal trials,
which will build on section 205(1) of the CPC and whose objective will be to
facilitate the timely disposal of cases, thereby ensuring that accused persons
are not held in places of detention for unduly long periods.
6.25 The NCAJ will streamline the process of transporting pretrial detainees.
6.26 Where the detention of a child offender is unavoidable, police officers should
not to detain such a child with adults, and ensure that the child does not
associate with adults who are not the childs relatives while the child is in
detention.77
6.27 The Director of Childrens Services has a duty to supervise childrens remand
homes, and places of safe custody,78and shall report to the NCAJ on a regular
basis.
6.28 The NPS and the KPS will integrate the protection of the rights of accused
persons with special needs in their management practices.
6.29 The NPS and the KPS will take into account the risk of abuse by other pretrial
detainees when determining the allocation of accused persons with special
needs to ensure their protection.
6.30 The NCAJ will coordinate with relevant institutions to ensure that the
conditions and services of places of detention are designed to protect the
well being of prisoners with special needs.
6.31 The NCAJ will work with relevant institutions to raise the awareness police
officers and prisons officers on the protection of the rights of prisoners with
special needs.
6.32 The NCAJ will initiate a campaign to educate public on issues relating to
bail and bond. In this respect, the NCAJ will work with the Probation and
Aftercare Service to make the public aware that the grant of bail does not
amount to the acquittal of an accused person.
6.33 The NCAJ will coordinate with relevant institutions to enhance the provision
of legal aid to pretrial detainees, with a view to safeguarding their pre-trial
rights.
77 Child Offender Rules, Rule 6.
78 Children Act, section 51.
36

COMBINED Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines-1

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

COMBINED Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines-1

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Bail and Bond

National Council on the Administration of Justice

Bail and Bond in the Courts

5. Supervision of Bail and Bond Terms and

6. Inter-Agency Coordination, Oversight of Places of

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Article 49(1)(h) of the Constitution of Kenya gives an arrested person the

1 Criminal Procedure Code, Chapter 75, Laws of Kenya, section 123(1).

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

These foregoing provisions of the Constitution and statutory laws seek to

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Ibid, section 3(b).

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Objectives of the Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

In particular, these Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines seek to:

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Bail and bond decision-making shall be guided by the following principles,

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Bail and Bond in the Police Station Situational Analysis

Bail and Bond Decision-Making

In practice, police decision-making on bail and bond can be unpredictable:

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Bail and Bond in the Police Station Situational Analysis

The administration of bail and bond in traffic offences presents special

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Bail and Bond in the Police Station Policy Directions

From the foregoing, a need arises to regulate police decision-making with

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Bail and Bond in the Police Station Policy Directions

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Bail and Bond in the Courts Situational Analysis

The performance of the foregoing judicial and administrative functions has

First, there is no uniformity in how the courts determine whether or not to

Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act 2011, section 3(5)(a).

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Bail and Bond in the Courts Situational Analysis

At present, there is no procedure for applying for bail. In many magistrates

In terms of substance, the primary factor considered by the courts in bail

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Bail and Bond in the Courts Situational Analysis

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Bail and Bond in the Courts Situational Analysis

38 See, e.g., Republic v Taiko Kitende Muinya [2010] eKLR.

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Bail and Bond in the Courts Situational Analysis

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Bail and Bond in the Courts Situational Analysis

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Bail and Bond in the Courts Situational Analysis

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Bail and Bond in the Courts Situational Analysis

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Bail and Bond in the Courts Situational Analysis

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Bail and Bond in the Courts Policy Directions

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Bail and Bond in the Courts Policy Directions

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Bail and Bond in the Courts Policy Directions

Victim Protection Act 2014, section 20(1)(b).

Bail and Bond Policy Guidelines

Bail and Bond in the Courts Policy Directions